What To Know When Making Claims Against Security Contractors At Licensed Venues.

People who suffer injuries at licensed venues are often left wondering who may be legally responsible for the harm they have experienced. This question commonly arises where an intoxicated patron becomes aggressive and assaults another person, resulting in significant physical and psychological injuries.

While venue operators owe duties to patrons, security contractors engaged to manage risks associated with intoxication and anti-social behaviour may also be liable in certain circumstances. Whether a successful claim can be brought will depend on the specific facts of each case and the evidence available.

Duty of Care Owed by Licensed Venues and Security Providers

As a general principle, occupiers of licensed venues owe patrons a duty of care to take reasonable steps to protect them from foreseeable risks of harm while on the premises.

Where the risk arises from the conduct of intoxicated or aggressive patrons, courts have generally accepted that venue operators may discharge aspects of this responsibility by engaging competent and appropriately trained security contractors. However, the existence of security personnel does not automatically protect a venue or security provider from liability.

The key question is whether the venue operator and/or security provider took reasonable steps to identify and manage foreseeable risks before an injury occurred. There have been several cases decided by the Court’s that provide some guidance as to how a Court will assess whether this duty has been breached, and what evidence is likely required in order for an injured person to be successful:

1. Newcastle Entertainment Security Pty Limited v Peter Simpson & Ors [1999] NSWCA 351. This involved injuries suffered by the plaintiff when he was attempting to leave the mosh pit at the Newcastle Entertainment Centre, and found himself involuntarily hoisted up by members of the crowd and passed over their heads. The Court held that, while the Centre manager owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, it acted reasonably by relying upon the expertise of the security firm to manage this risk.
2. Wagstaff v Haslam [2007] NSWCA 28. The Court held that the degree of intoxication does not of itself give rise to a duty to take immediate steps to remove a person affected by alcohol from premises to protect other patrons, but rather that an element of either actual or constructive knowledge of something more (aggressive behaviour, for example) is required to trigger that duty.
3. Rooty Hill RSL Club v Karimi {2009] NSWCA 2. This involved significant brain injury following being king hit by an intoxicated patron. The plaintiff and the assailant had been involved in an altercation before both were evicted from the venue. The eviction was managed by security, with each party leaving individually. However, the assailant found the plaintiff and hit him. The Court of Appeal held that the security provider and venue operator took all reasonable actions to manage the risk of injury to the plaintiff in the circumstances.
4. Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem [2009] HCA 48, the High Court confirmed that although a licensed premises has obligations to patrons pursuant to the Liquor Act 1982 (NSW), the liability of a licensee (and security provider) will depend on a plaintiff establishing that the licensee (and security provider) ought to have known of facts requiring a direct intervening act on their part, and which would have safeguarded the injured person from a foreseeable risk of harm.
5. Bondi Beach Foods Pty Ltd v Chadwick [2023] NSWCA 265. This involved injuries to the plaintiff following an assault by an intoxicated patron at the venue. The principal issue was the way in which the premises were monitored for signs of intoxication on the part of its patrons. The Court found that it had not been established that the assailant manifested signs of intoxication or violence prior to the subject assault. However, it was found that there had been a breach of duty in failing to have at least two licensed security guards on duty at the relevant time and that, on the basis of the particular circumstances of this claim, had this occurred it was more likely than not that the two parties would have been separated before the assault.

Evidence that May be Critical to a Claim

These decisions demonstrate that every claim must be assessed on its own facts.

They also highlight the importance of obtaining evidence relating to how the venue and its security contractors managed risks at the time of the incident.

Relevant evidence may include:

1. The Venue’s liquor licence and any security conditions attached to it.
2. Contracts or service agreements between the venue operator and security provider
3. Security staff rosters identifying the number of guards on duty at the relevant time
4. Records of training, licensing, accreditation and induction of security personnel.
5. Incident registers and reports maintained by the venue.
6. Risk assessments, security plans, policies, procedures and guidelines in effect at the time of the incident.
7. Eviction policies and designated patron removal pathways.
8. CCTV footage showing patron behaviour, interactions with security staff, signs of intoxication, or aggressive conduct prior to the incident.

Key Takeaways

Claims arising from assaults at licensed venues are often complex and highly fact-specific. Courts will closely examine what venue operators and security personnel knew, or ought reasonably to have known, about the risk of harm before the incident occurred. Evidence demonstrating inadequate security staffing, poor monitoring of patron behaviour, failures to follow policies and procedures, or inadequate responses to signs of aggression may significantly affect the outcome of a claim.

For individuals injured at licensed venues, obtaining legal advice as early as possible is important to ensure that critical evidence, including CCTV footage and incident reports, is preserved and investigated.